workplace bullying

I have been conducting harassment prevention training for California clients since AB 1825 became effective back in 2005. After presenting what must be hundreds of sessions in the last decade, I am always on the look-out for new topics to discuss, and new hypotheticals to present, and sometimes the universe just cooperates with me. Watching the second Presidential debate last weekend was one of those experiences.

Since 2015 (AB 2053), California law has required employers to train management on abusive conduct (also known as “bullying”). While bullying is not yet illegal, it should be against most employer policies, and should lead to discipline for employees who violate those policies.

Bullying is defined as workplace conduct, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests. The law goes on to say that bullying may include:

Derogatory remarks, insults, and epithets;

Verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating;

The gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance.

So let’s consider the following hypothetical:

A group of managers is in a team meeting where each person is supposed to present on their enumerated topics to a group of colleagues. When one manager is talking, the other one (who is physically larger) is pacing behind, making faces, and making noises (something between a snort and a grunt). The hands are gesturing and fingers pointing. The manager pacing also repeatedly interrupts the colleague, either with snide comments, jokes (which get laughs or cheers), or insults. Is this bullying?

Would a reasonable person find this conduct to be hostile? Offensive? Unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests? Is this verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating or humiliating? Absolutely.

In fact, many employment attorneys and HR professionals I know were physically uncomfortable while watching the debate, at least in part because we were witnessing conduct that no reasonable employer could tolerate. While we certainly cannot require free speech to be polite or politically correct, we certainly can and should agree that this type of bullying would not be okay in any workplace.

As an employment litigator and the co-chair of my firm’s Women’s Initiative, I have been particularly interested in the press surrounding the claims brought by Ellen Pao against her former employer. As explained in a prior post, Pao claimed that she was harassed by male colleagues, and when she complained about that harassment to Human Resources, was retaliated against and ultimately terminated. She brought claims of sex discrimination and retaliation, and a San Francisco jury vindicated the employer and dismissed her claims.

This saga illuminated several of the themes that I often address with clients when conducting harassment prevention training.

First, to be unlawful, conduct must be “severe or pervasive,” unwelcome, based on sex, and have an adverse impact on the work environment. As of this year, harassment prevention training must cover abusive conduct aka “bullying” (defined as conduct, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests). Put simply, just because the conduct isn’t unlawful, doesn’t make it right.

Second, retaliation claims are very easy to bring and very hard to defend. While the employer here was ultimately successful, keep in mind that it took a 24 day jury trial for that vindication. Quite often retaliation claims are fact intensive and not susceptible to summary judgment or prompt resolution.

Third, even if harassment claims fail, it is quite possible for a retaliation claim based on a meritless harassment claim to succeed. And unfortunately, many managers do retaliate against employees who complain, albeit sometimes inadvertently. In my training, I always include examples of a manager who was frustrated with an employee who complained about something, and takes actions that could be construed as retaliatory (such as ignoring pleas for help, letting others give the complaining employee a hard time, and/or directing opportunities elsewhere). Managers need to be trained to not only avoid retaliation, but also the appearance of retaliation.

Fourth, defending a harassment, discrimination, or retaliation claim can be a very high hurdle for employers, who need to essentially justify their actions by picking apart the plaintiff’s behavior. That requires a very delicate balance. In reviewing how Pao was expertly cross-examined, I cheered for the female attorney who scored such good points for her client. At the same time I was saddened for women who honestly believe they are stepping up to expose institutional problems that others are too afraid to raise.

And finally, the press accounts of the Pao trial indicate that there is unconscious bias in the workplace. Semantics matters, such as referring to a woman as someone with “sharp elbows” – would anyone refer to a man that way?

All in all, there are lessons here for everyone. Let’s just hope employers (and employees), female (and male), take a minute to digest them.

Michael Fox has been writing his blog — Jottings By An Employer’s Lawyer — for over a decade. Throughout that time, he’s been vigilant in opposing "anti-bullying" legislation for the workplace. It’s not that he likes bullies (although he did threaten to take my lunch money if I didn’t plug his blog). It’s that he realizes what a morass it would be if every employee could describe an unpleasant reaction with a co-worker or supervisor as "bullying." Read his latest observations on this topic here.

I’ve posted before about how, in the employment context, harassment is only unlawful when it has a discriminatory motive or effect. In other words, as the Supreme Court has observed, the anti-discrimination laws weren’t intended and shouldn’t be used as a "general civility code."

All that would change with the adoption of laws purporting to address workplace bullying. Such legislation was recently passed by the New York State Senate and similar legislation has been considered in California and elsewhere (although nothing seems to be on the legislative docket here now).

No one is suggesting that abusive behavior should be tolerated at work or anywhere else. If employers are aware of such behavior, they have a right, a duty, and a business justification to stop it. But as long as people are working together there will be conflicts. And you don’t need too many conflicts before one or more of the parties involved starts portraying themselves as a victim. I don’t think anyone would question that workplace bullying laws will lead to more litigation. Yet there’s plenty of room to dispute whether it will result in any actual change in workplace behavior.

[As a postscript, no blog post on this topic would be complete without acknowledging Michael Fox, who has been blogging about this issue since before most of us knew what a blog was.]

About Our Firm

Fox Rothschild LLP is a national law firm with 800 attorneys practicing in 22 offices coast to coast. We’ve been serving clients for more than a century, and we’ve been climbing the ranks of the nation’s largest firms for many years, according to both The Am Law 100 and The National Law Journal.Read More...